[Vision2020] New York City Mayor Bloomberg "A Vote for a President to Lead on Climate Change"

[Ted Moffett]

 Critical statement from Bloomberg, in his endorsement of Obama for
president:

"Our climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme weather we have
experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the
result of it, the risk that it might be – given this week's devastation –
should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action."
------------------------------------------------------------

First Bloombergs op-ed, then commentary from the UK Guardian:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/a-vote-for-a-president-to-lead-on-climate-change.html

A Vote for a President to Lead on Climate Change
By Michael R. Bloomberg  Nov 1, 2012 11:55 AM PT

The devastation that Hurricane
Sandy<http://topics.bloomberg.com/hurricane-sandy/>brought to New
York <http://topics.bloomberg.com/new-york/> City and much of the Northeast
-- in lost lives, lost homes and lost business -- brought the stakes of
Tuesday’s presidential election into sharp relief.

The floods and fires that swept through our city left a path of destruction
that will require years of recovery and rebuilding work. And in the short
term, our subway system
<http://topics.bloomberg.com/subway-system/>remains partially shut
down, and many city residents and businesses still
have no power. In just 14 months, two hurricanes have forced us to evacuate
neighborhoods -- something our city government had never done before. If
this is a trend, it is simply not sustainable.

Our climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme weather we have
experienced in New York City
<http://topics.bloomberg.com/new-york-city/>and around the world may
or may not be the result of it, the risk that it
might be -- given this week’s devastation -- should compel all elected
leaders to take immediate action.

Here in New York, our comprehensive sustainability plan --
PlaNYC<http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/home/home.shtml>-- has
helped allow us to cut our carbon footprint by 16 percent in just
five years, which is the equivalent of eliminating the carbon footprint of
a city twice the size of Seattle <http://topics.bloomberg.com/seattle/>.
Through the C40 <http://www.c40cities.org/> Cities Climate Leadership Group
-- a partnership among many of the world’s largest cities -- local
governments are taking action where national governments are not.
Leadership Needed

But we can’t do it alone. We need leadership from the White House -- and
over the past four years, President Barack
Obama<http://topics.bloomberg.com/barack-obama/>has taken major steps
to reduce our carbon consumption, including setting higher
fuel-efficiency standards <http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy> for cars and
trucks. His administration also has adopted tighter controls on mercury
emissions, which will help to close the dirtiest coal power plants (an
effort I have supported through my philanthropy), which are estimated to
kill 13,000 Americans a year.

Mitt Romney, too, has a history of tackling climate
change<http://topics.bloomberg.com/climate-change/>.
As governor of Massachusetts <http://topics.bloomberg.com/massachusetts/>,
he signed on to a regional cap- and-trade plan designed to reduce carbon
emissions <http://topics.bloomberg.com/carbon-emissions/> 10 percent below
1990 levels. “The benefits (of that plan) will be long- lasting and
enormous -- benefits to our health, our economy, our quality of life, our
very landscape. These are actions we can and must take now, if we are to
have ‘no regrets’ when we transfer our temporary stewardship of this Earth
to the next generation,” he wrote at the time.

He couldn’t have been more right. But since then, he has reversed course,
abandoning the very cap-and-trade program he once supported. This issue is
too important. We need determined leadership at the national level to move
the nation and the world forward.

believe Mitt Romney <http://topics.bloomberg.com/mitt-romney/> is a good
and decent man, and he would bring valuable business experience to the Oval
Office<http://www.clintonpresidentialcenter.org/exhibits/permanent-exhibits/oval-office>.
He understands that America was built on the promise of equal opportunity,
not equal results. In the past he has also taken sensible positions on
immigration, illegal guns, abortion rights and health care. But he has
reversed course on all of them, and is even running against the health-care
model he signed into law in Massachusetts.

If the 1994 or 2003 version of Mitt Romney were running for president, I
may well have voted for him because, like so many other independents, I
have found the past four years to be, in a word, disappointing.

In 2008, Obama ran as a pragmatic problem-solver and consensus-builder. But
as president, he devoted little time and effort to developing and
sustaining a coalition of centrists, which doomed hope for any real
progress on illegal guns, immigration, tax
reform<http://topics.bloomberg.com/tax-reform/>,
job creation <http://topics.bloomberg.com/job-creation/> and deficit
reduction <http://topics.bloomberg.com/deficit-reduction/>. And rather than
uniting the country around a message of shared sacrifice, he engaged in
partisan attacks and has embraced a divisive populist agenda focused more
on redistributing income than creating it.
Important Victories

Nevertheless, the president has achieved some important victories on issues
that will help define our future. His Race to the
Top<http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html>education
program -- much of which was opposed by the teachers’ unions, a
traditional Democratic Party constituency -- has helped drive badly needed
reform across the country, giving local districts leverage to strengthen
accountability in the classroom and expand charter
schools<http://topics.bloomberg.com/charter-schools/>.
His health-care law -- for all its flaws -- will provide insurance coverage
to people who need it most and save lives.

When I step into the voting booth, I think about the world I want to leave
my two daughters, and the values that are required to guide us there. The
two parties’ nominees for president offer different visions of where they
want to lead America.

One believes a woman’s right to choose should be protected for future
generations; one does not. That difference, given the likelihood of Supreme
Court <http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/SupremeCourt.html> vacancies,
weighs heavily on my decision.

One recognizes marriage equality as consistent with America’s march of
freedom; one does not. I want our president to be on the right side of
history.

One sees climate change <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/> as an urgent
problem that threatens our planet; one does not. I want our president to
place scientific evidence and risk management above electoral politics.

Of course, neither candidate has specified what hard decisions he will make
to get our economy back on track while also balancing the budget. But in
the end, what matters most isn’t the shape of any particular proposal; it’s
the work that must be done to bring members of Congress together to achieve
bipartisan solutions.

Presidents Bill Clinton <http://topics.bloomberg.com/bill-clinton/> and Ronald
Reagan <http://topics.bloomberg.com/ronald-reagan/> both found success
while their parties were out of power in Congress -- and President Obama
can, too. If he listens to people on both sides of the aisle, and builds
the trust of moderates, he can fulfill the hope he inspired four years ago
and lead our country toward a better future for my children and yours. And
that’s why I will be voting for him.

(Michael R. Bloomberg
<http://topics.bloomberg.com/michael-r.-bloomberg/>is mayor of New
York and founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News
parent Bloomberg LP.)

To contact the Bloomberg View editorial board: view at bloomberg.net.
-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/01/bloomberg-endorses-obama-climate-change
New York's Bloomberg endorses Obama to lead on climate change New York
mayor combines endorsement with attack on Romney for failures over climate
change, women's rights and gun contro


   - Ewen MacAskill <http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/ewenmacaskill>
and Suzanne
   Goldenberg <http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/suzannegoldenberg> in
   Washington
   - The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian>, Thursday 1
   November 2012


The impact of the superstorm Sandy was felt directly on the presidential
election on Thursday when the popular mayor of New
York<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/new-york>,
Michael Bloomberg <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/michaelbloomberg>, threw
his support behind Barack Obama<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/barack-obama>,
citing Republican challenger Mitt
Romney<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/mittromney>'s
failure to back climate
change<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change>measures.

Bloomberg combined his endorsement of Obama with a devastating attack on
Romney for reversing his positions not only on climate change but on
immigration, guns, abortion rights and healthcare.

His endorsement came as Obama received plaudits for his handling of the
storm that has devastated New Jersey and New York and also hit Connecticut
and West Virginia.

The mayor, writing about the damage caused to New York by Sandy, praised
Obama for having made some progress towards tackling climate change. He
noted that Romney, too, had supported climate change moves in the past but
has since backed away from them.

In a powerful passage that can only hurt Romney, Bloomberg went on to
write: "I believe Mitt Romney is a good and decent man, and he would bring
valuable business experience to the Oval Office. He understands that
America was built on the promise of equal opportunity, not equal results.

"In the past he has also taken sensible positions on immigration, illegal
guns, abortion rights and healthcare. But he has reversed course on all of
them, and is even running against the healthcare model he signed into law
in Massachusetts."

Obama said he was honoured to have Bloomberg's endorsement. "I deeply
respect him for his leadership in business, philanthropy and government,
and [I] appreciate the extraordinary job he's doing right now, leading New
York City through these difficult days," the president said.

"Mayor Bloomberg and I agree on the most important issues of our time –
that the key to a strong economy is investing in the skills and education
of our people, that immigration reform is essential to an open and dynamic
democracy, and that climate change is a threat to our children's future.

"Just as importantly, we agree that whether we are
Democrats<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/democrats>,
Republicans <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/republicans>, or independents,
there is only one way to solve these challenges and move forward as a
nation – together."

Bloomberg's support comes after New Jersey governor Chris Christie praised
Obama for his handling of Sandy. Although Christie is a Republican and a
prominent supporter of Romney, he went out of his way this week to
repeatedly praise Obama's leadership in responding to the crisis.

Bloomberg is an independent who had originally been a Democrat before
switching to the Republicans in 2001. He won the mayorship as a Republican
but fell out with the party in 2007.

He considered running as an independent in the 2008 White House election
and commissioned polls in all 50 states, dropping the idea after finding
insufficient support.

In his op-ed, Bloomberg brings climate change, largely ignored by Obama and
Romney during the campaign, back to the fore.

"The devastation that Hurricane
Sandy<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/hurricane-sandy>brought to New
York City and much of the north-east – in lost lives, lost
homes and lost business – brought the stakes of Tuesday's presidential
election into sharp relief," he wrote.

He added: "Our climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme
weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or
may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be – given this week's
devastation – should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action."

Obama had taken major steps to reduce carbon consumption and Romney too had
a history of tackling climate change but had reversed course.

He said he was disappointed with Obama on many issues, listing among them
healthcare reform.

"When I step into the voting booth, I think about the world I want to leave
my two daughters, and the values that are required to guide us there. The
two parties' nominees for president offer different visions of where they
want to lead America," he writes.

"One believes a woman's right to choose should be protected for future
generations; one does not. That difference, given the likelihood of supreme
court vacancies, weighs heavily on my decision.

"One recognises marriage equality as consistent with America's march of
freedom; one does not. I want our president to be on the right side of
history."

He concluded: "Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan both found success
while their parties were out of power in Congress – and President Obama
can, too. If he listens to people on both sides of the aisle, and builds
the trust of moderates, he can fulfil the hope he inspired four years ago
and lead our country toward a better future for my children and yours. And
that's why I will be voting for him."

The Economist, which has a wide readership in the US, said in an editorial
it had backed Obama four years ago and was doing so again. It regretted
that Romney was too far removed from the centre.

"This newspaper yearns for the more tolerant conservatism of Ronald Reagan,
where 'small government' meant keeping the state out of people's bedrooms
as well as out of their businesses. Mr Romney shows no sign of wanting to
revive it," it says.

It concludes: "For all his businesslike intentions, Mr Romney has an
economic plan that works only if you don't believe most of what he says.
That is not a convincing pitch for a chief executive. And for all his
shortcomings, Mr Obama has dragged America's economy back from the brink of
disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy. So this newspaper
would stick with the devil it knows, and re-elect him."

Fellow Republicans downplayed the significance of Bloomberg's endorsement.
"It's not surprising to me. Bloomberg is a very liberal political figure,"
said George Pataki, the former Republican governor of New York.

Pataki also argued Romney would be "far better" than Obama in dealing with
climate change.

Pataki during his time as governor was one of the creators of a regional
carbon trading system – which is in partial collapse since Christie pulled
out last year.

He said of Romney's position: "I think he is far better than Obama, who
embraced the Markey-Waxman bill. That is the fear when you allow people
like Pelosi and Reid and Obama to draft national legislation that is not so
much aimed at climate change but at expanding government power and
government revenue. I think Romney would be far better."
 ------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121102/285762e5/attachment-0001.html>